-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
GAF Photography 2009 - Q4
- Thread starter Madvillain
- Start date
- Status
silverbullet1080
Banned
Glasses cleaning cloth?aidan said:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
silverbullet1080 said:
I generally follow these guidelines.
http://www.bythom.com/cleaning.htm
This is the Copperhill tech that mrkgoo mentioned:
http://www.copperhillimages.com/index.php?pr=tutorials
silverbullet1080
Banned
That should help alot; thanksRentahamster said:
szwishenshiba
Member
Snake and Spiders:
Lucky Forward
Member
Air Bear!
Lucky Forward
Member
Thanks, do you mean the fourth shot? That was another one of those shots where I just held the pre-focused wide-angle lens in front of his face and clicked away without looking through the viewfinder. I did aim carefully, though, and checked the results on the LCD to adjust my composition.mrkgoo said:
I bought a bunch of new toys for Bear, including the red ball, but he's got a few of Duncan's favorite old toys, too.
Whoops, yeah, I can't count.Lucky Forward said:Thanks, do you mean the fourth shot? That was another one of those shots where I just held the pre-focused wide-angle lens in front of his face and clicked away without looking through the viewfinder. I did aim carefully, though, and checked the results on the LCD to adjust my composition.
I bought a bunch of new toys for Bear, including the red ball, but he's got a few of Duncan's favorite old toys, too.
All the best for you and Bear.
evanylee: Loving that first shot. Has a really 'mystery' about it.
Lucky: I'm still mesmerised by those shots. I don't think I've ever wanted a dog more than I do right now.
aidan: Better run, your sky is on fire!
It was much more mellow around me:
EF-S 17-55 IS 28mm, f/8.0, 1/13s, iso400
And ugh, tried my best:
EF 70-200f/4L + 1.4xTC, 280mm, f/8.0, 1/320s, iso1600
Lucky: I'm still mesmerised by those shots. I don't think I've ever wanted a dog more than I do right now.
aidan: Better run, your sky is on fire!
It was much more mellow around me:
EF-S 17-55 IS 28mm, f/8.0, 1/13s, iso400
And ugh, tried my best:
EF 70-200f/4L + 1.4xTC, 280mm, f/8.0, 1/320s, iso1600
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Man, aidan, your local sky produces some amazing dynamic clouds and sunsets. Your shots always remind me to look up during Sunsets
And evanylee, the first shot is fantastic. I love tight portraits that completely fill the frame like that. Very lovely.
Also, mrkgoo, I was wondering what you were going to use that TC for... had forgotten you had the 70-200/4 lens. Nice closeup on the moon!
And evanylee, the first shot is fantastic. I love tight portraits that completely fill the frame like that. Very lovely.
Also, mrkgoo, I was wondering what you were going to use that TC for... had forgotten you had the 70-200/4 lens. Nice closeup on the moon!
BlueTsunami said:Man, aidan, your local sky produces some amazing dynamic clouds and sunsets. Your shots always remind me to look up during Sunsets
Thanks man. Luckily my kitchen window looks west(ish), so I can often tell when a nice sunset is coming. The trouble is that a sunset like the one in that photo often only lasts for (literally) a couple of minutes.
To be frank, I don't feel like I have the technical ability/know-how to properly capture the sunsets. They kick my ass and more or less do what they want. I'll often see a sunset, know it could make a gorgeous photo, shoot, boot it up in Lightroom and leave empty handed because my shots are junk. I've got a lot to learn.
aidan said:
That's what's so great about photography. So much room to learn - it's impossible to get it all down pat!
I'm considering ripping open my MacBook Pro (it's the older one so I literally have to rip it open), and smacking a whopping big hard drive so I can fully get into the heavy end.
Just pulling up some old photos I took to play around, in this case, I had the sense to capture some raw images when I was at the Grand Canyon.
So here's the shot that came straight from my camera:
And here's a shot I've gone back and processed myself from the raw:
EF-S 17-55 IS, 17mm, f/11.0, 1/100s, iso200
So I'm still new at this, and I don't have proper software for it, but there's hope for me yet!
killertofu
Member
So while I was in downtown Jacksonville tonight for this monthly Art Walk thing, I passed by this guy taking photos and just noticed that the strap said 7D. Turned around, asked him where he got it and he said that he had to order it from...Washington...State.
That's dedication
That's dedication
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Looking at your settings, I would suggest narrowing your aperture, lowering your ISO, and increasing your shutter speed (while using a tripod for stability).aidan said:
In Lightroom (you're shooting RAW, right?) try this:
5-10 highlight recovery (depending on how blown out the brightest parts of the sky are)
15-50 clarity (it'll increase the midtone contrast an may look better - use your best judgement)
lotsa vibrance
lower the red/orange/yellow/blue/purple/magenta luminance to taste for some dramatic effects.
sharpen, of course
use a little vignette to taste (the lens correcting one, not the post-crop one)
And the key to making sunsets look cool in Lightroom - split toning
play around with the highlight and shadow split toning. Give it some blues, or oranges, or purples, or whatever.
Use the exposure brush to selectively darken overexposed areas to bring back some detail.
If you want to get fancy, do an exposure bracket and then blend the exposures in Photoshop. Two or three should be fine.
Sync the settings so that they are the same on all pictures.
Press 'g' to go to grid mode.
Rick click - open the pics in Photoshop as layers
In Photoshop, use layer masks to mask out blown highlights, and too dark areas.
Rentahamster said:
Thanks man. Without yet having a chance to get out there with my tripod (I took the shot handheld last night, crossing my fingers for another nice sunset tonight), I went ahead and re-processed that photo with your advice. Though I'm sure it could have been done with a subtler touch, I think this one turned out better than the previous.
Scythian Empire
Member
Taken with my Olympus OM10 -
My scanner really messed this one up, but I'm actually quite fond of the grainy effect.
Aidan: I think your second shot is way overdone, personally.
Scythian empire: Love the grass shot. I'm a real sucker for these kinds of images, and I love looking at them and trying to emulate them.
In other news, my EF-S 17-55 is borked for like the 7th time. I swore that if it broke again, I would not pay to get it fixed. It's just not worth it. I was wet-cleaning my 7D, and when I went to take test shots, the 17-55 would no longer achieve focus readily, and when it FINALLY did, it was way off. Like several feet off. Another lens had an issue, but dismounting/remounting fixed that, and my 17-55 shows the issue on my 40D too (bless having a second camera to test!).
Even though it' so unwise for me to get another lens after just purchasing a body, I'll have to consider my options. LUCKY FORWARD!!!! Should I get a 10-22? Or maybe a 17-40F4L? Dammit, it's such a shame, because the 17-55 has a feature set second to none, but it's not worth it if it breaks twice a year.
Scythian empire: Love the grass shot. I'm a real sucker for these kinds of images, and I love looking at them and trying to emulate them.
In other news, my EF-S 17-55 is borked for like the 7th time. I swore that if it broke again, I would not pay to get it fixed. It's just not worth it. I was wet-cleaning my 7D, and when I went to take test shots, the 17-55 would no longer achieve focus readily, and when it FINALLY did, it was way off. Like several feet off. Another lens had an issue, but dismounting/remounting fixed that, and my 17-55 shows the issue on my 40D too (bless having a second camera to test!).
Even though it' so unwise for me to get another lens after just purchasing a body, I'll have to consider my options. LUCKY FORWARD!!!! Should I get a 10-22? Or maybe a 17-40F4L? Dammit, it's such a shame, because the 17-55 has a feature set second to none, but it's not worth it if it breaks twice a year.
Lucky Forward
Member
The 10-22 is a great lens that opens up a lot of creative possibilities. That said, I would think you would want to have a "walk-around" lens that covers that 17-55 range before you went super-wide angle.mrkgoo said:
Personally, I bought the 17-85 IS for my walk-around lens back in '05, but now that I've bought some better lenses in other focal lengths, I do feel that the 17-85's image quality is just OK, but the images don't really pop. I've been debating whether to upgrade to something like the 17-40L (don't know a lot about it yet), or should I just take my time and acquire more prime lenses over the next few years like the 24L, 35L, and 50L. I haven't bought anything lately because of a lot of extra expenses this year, and the few times I was tempted to pull the trigger on the 24 or 35, they were out of stock so I was saved from impulse buying.
Lucky Forward said:The 10-22 is a great lens that opens up a lot of creative possibilities. That said, I would think you would want to have a "walk-around" lens that covers that 17-55 range before you went super-wide angle.
Personally, I bought the 17-85 IS for my walk-around lens back in '05, but now that I've bought some better lenses in other focal lengths, I do feel that the 17-85's image quality is just OK, but the images don't really pop. I've been debating whether to upgrade to something like the 17-40L (don't know a lot about it yet), or should I just take my time and acquire more prime lenses over the next few years like the 24L, 35L, and 50L. I haven't bought anything lately because of a lot of extra expenses this year, and the few times I was tempted to pull the trigger on the 24 or 35, they were out of stock so I was saved from impulse buying.
Thanks for your input, it's really appreciated.
I have a 50mm f/1.8, a 60mmf/2.8 and an 85 mm f/1.8 primes, os I'm ok in short tele really. I just really like the 'walk-around' range. The 17-85 IS sounds like a winner, but I kind of want to move forward with my collection - not drop back in IQ.
The four lenses I would seriously consider:
EF-s 10-22: Ultra wide, but lose the normal to tele range.
17-40 f4L: covers the range, but lose some low light and portrait style shots.
24-105 f4L: Lose some wider angle (This is somewhat important to me).
24-70 f/2.8L: Perhaps the BEST option to retain as much quality as possible while actually moving forward, but damn, this is too expensive for me at the moment.
There's also the EF-s 15-85 and 15-135 lenses recently announced.
It's a real shame about the 17-55. Such a great lens, such poor build. I'd be tempted to get another one, but you can understand how I feel in regards to being burnt by this lens.
Lucky Forward
Member
I really do wholeheartedly recommend the 10-22 (it's fun!), but the gap in coverage you would have between 22mm and your 50mm 1.8 would be pretty large.mrkgoo said:
That's a shame about your 17-55, but it sounds like you gave it enough chances.
Aiden, I agree with mrkgoo.
I think the sky in your first shot is perfect.
I would definitely use a tripod and a narrow aperture like f8.
Its the street and houses i would lighten a little in your picture.
I did a few sunsets in Michigan when I was there taking a bunch of pictures just to learn and it was a great experience I feel like I got a few keepers, we get more of a pink sunset in Houston. And its so flat here, not much for sunsets.
mrkgoo nice PP on your picture, the second is a dramatic difference from the first.
I think the sky in your first shot is perfect.
I would definitely use a tripod and a narrow aperture like f8.
Its the street and houses i would lighten a little in your picture.
I did a few sunsets in Michigan when I was there taking a bunch of pictures just to learn and it was a great experience I feel like I got a few keepers, we get more of a pink sunset in Houston. And its so flat here, not much for sunsets.
mrkgoo nice PP on your picture, the second is a dramatic difference from the first.
captive said:
Interesting. The more I compare the two, the more I think the photo was a lost cause from the beginning and shows that not everything can be saved through PP. I've got my fingers crossed for another nice sunset tonight, so I can try a tripod (and maybe some exposure bracketing) to even things out a bit.
Thanks for the feedback guys!
This is cool.
It's always nice to get a reminder that good gear isn't what makes a photographer. It also means all those chumps who don't post in these threads because they don't have a 'good camera' have no excuse not to join us any more!
Gizmodo said:
It's always nice to get a reminder that good gear isn't what makes a photographer. It also means all those chumps who don't post in these threads because they don't have a 'good camera' have no excuse not to join us any more!
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
A dynamic image (compositionally) with interesting lighting will definitely make up for any shortcomings in the system your using.
Lucky Forward
Member
That reminds me, I posted an article a while back (but I can't find it) about a photojournalist working in the middle east who decided to forgo DSLR's and just work with two compact lightweight digital cameras that he hung around his neck together, one on a short strap above one on a longer strap. The big advantage for him was that when he came upon a scene he was always ready, and he would shoot in burst mode until the buffer was full on the first camera, and while it was writing to the memory card he would switch off to the second camera without skipping a beat and keep shooting, and he would continue switching off between the two cameras as long as necessary.aidan said:
Joe: Great stuff! DO you have a Mac? I'm curious about Aperture vs. Lightroom.
Aidan: I've seen that book doing the rounds. It'd be neat to have a look. If I ever get voted high enough in the assignments again (huh, I guess I should submit once and a while
), I was thinking of making a assignment of 'loofa-fi', cell cams only...
Ugh, can't think straight. I keep wanting to bite no 17-40L. But really, I need to just go home and see if I can do anything about my 17-55. Researching lenses I want, and nothing comes lose to the feature set of the 17-55.
Aidan: I've seen that book doing the rounds. It'd be neat to have a look. If I ever get voted high enough in the assignments again (huh, I guess I should submit once and a while
), I was thinking of making a assignment of 'loofa-fi', cell cams only...Ugh, can't think straight. I keep wanting to bite no 17-40L. But really, I need to just go home and see if I can do anything about my 17-55. Researching lenses I want, and nothing comes lose to the feature set of the 17-55.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Yeah, the rework of your original sunset pic was a bit too much. Sorry if I'm confusing you. Optimizing your photos in Lightroom is really tricky. The suggestions I gave you were merely just that - suggestions. For me, that's a general starting point. Each photo has different characteristics that can be influenced differently by the same settings.aidan said:
Let me point out a few quick things.
A:
Now, one of the main things we want to preserve or enhance in a landscape photo is detail. When you look closely at the clouds in the second shot, the detail isn't as good as the first shot. The contrasty tonal gradations kinda get mushed all together.
This is one of the things you have to be careful of when using the color specific luminance sliders, as well as highlight recovery.
Also, you gotta be careful of just how much you use the exposure brush to recover highlights. In the first pic, the blown out parts of the picture are supposed to be that way. You need to be mindful of what's supposed to be blown out and what highlight detail can be recovered without the photo looking to "fakey".
When you go to far, as you see in some of the areas around "A", there is no detail left to bring back, and everything just turns to one flat tone.
There is a fine line between "trying to increase the dynamic range of a photo by lightening the shadow areas and darkening the highlight areas" to "my photo has no contrast anymore". It's hard to explain, but once you can recognize what's supposed to be super light and super dark, and differentiate that from what could be enhanced to show more detail, your post processing skill will improve.
Also - Lightroom is bad at keeping the bokeh in a photo smooth and creamy when you apply a lot of adjustments. Keep an eye out for that.
B:
Halos.
Whenever losts of post processing work is done, halos usually pop up. In this case, the yellow is enhanced in that area, causing it to bleed onto the silhouette of the tree and making a yellow halo or fakey yellow edge thing.
Lightroom is kinda bad at doing this. If you see artifacts like that pop up, ease up on the adjustments.
C:
This is kinda subjective, but in a sunset shot like this, it's probably more dramatic to go with a dark silhouette of the neighborhood skyline as there isn't anything particularly interesting on the street to draw the viewer's interest. Another point being that this is only one exposure, and trying to brighten up the dark street and house areas will only introduce a lot of noise.
Anyway, I hope I'm not confusing you, but there are a lot of things to consider when doing post in Lightroom. There really isn't a one solution fits all kinda deal. I see a lot of folks trying to copy settings exactly when that's not the point. One preset isn't going to work on everything. You really got to get a feel for what each slider is doing to your picture - good as well as bad - and adjust your train of thought accordingly.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Ok, Mosaic stitch of my cousin!
I'm very happy with the way it came out This is using my good ol' Canon 50/1.4. The increased FoV gives it some sort of 35mm look without the elongated perspective. The image is composed of 22 Frames.
Unfortunately, I forgot to set my camera to full manual and ended up shooting each frame in Aperture Priority. This had the bad effect of metering each frame differently, the negative outcome of doing this appears in his hands. Fortunately it didn't effect his face since his face is composed of a couple of frames.
I love this technique so much, its my "Medium Frame" effect. I should be able to achieve this with way less frames on a Full Frame camera (I'm using an APS-C Rebel XT)
I'm very happy with the way it came out
This is using my good ol' Canon 50/1.4. The increased FoV gives it some sort of 35mm look without the elongated perspective. The image is composed of 22 Frames.Unfortunately, I forgot to set my camera to full manual and ended up shooting each frame in Aperture Priority. This had the bad effect of metering each frame differently, the negative outcome of doing this appears in his hands. Fortunately it didn't effect his face since his face is composed of a couple of frames.
I love this technique so much, its my "Medium Frame" effect. I should be able to achieve this with way less frames on a Full Frame camera (I'm using an APS-C Rebel XT)
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Nice! Have you done this before, or was this your first time?BlueTsunami said:Ok, Mosaic stitch of my cousin!
I'm very happy with the way it came out
Unfortunately, I forgot to set my camera to full manual and ended up shooting each frame in Aperture Priority. This had the bad effect of metering each frame differently, the negative outcome of doing this appears in his hands. Fortunately it didn't effect his face since his face is composed of a couple of frames.
I love this technique so much, its my "Medium Frame" effect. I should be able to achieve this with way less frames on a Full Frame camera (I'm using an APS-C Rebel XT)
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Rentahamster said:
I've done used it with inanimate objects but up until now not with a human subject. Its a very fun technique to use.
Rentahamster: Thanks for the great info - that's very helpful. I know it was pointed at Aidan, but there's so much to learn.
BlusTsunami, that turned out great!
heist: Love that shot. I like the subtle titling, makes you sit there and think for second, engaging the viewer.
In other news, I just clicked 'place order' on a EF17-40F4L. My 17-55 is out of action, and I'm going to send it into Canon to see what recourse I can get with that lemon of a lens, but I really wanted something wide for this weekend and next week when I go to portland. Knowing my luck, it'll probably rain. Well, good thing it's a weather sealed 'L' then, right?
I chose it based on Lucky Forward's suggestion. I was thinking of going really wide with a 10-22, but he was right about missing that short tele. I'm thinking I'm going to miss the wide aperture, sharp detail, and IS, as well s the extra 15mm on the long end. But I'm not gambling with another 17-55, plus I'll get to experience that 'L' colour again, hopefully. Added features are the extra light weight making this much more useful as a walking/hiking lens, the build, and I'm hoping I will get MUCH less vignetting wide open. The last thing is just hoping, and it wasn't bad on my 17-55, but when I had a UV filter and a polariser stacked, I basically couldn't use the 17-55 wider than f/8.0. I'm guessing it should be sweet on a FF lens on a crop camera.
And no, I'm not made of money
I just anger-purchased at my 17-55. I had to switch to a New Zealand account to pay for it (and obviously, it was one of the least expensive options for a new lens). I guess it doesn't hurt that the US exchange is pretty poor at the moment, working in favour of buying using foreign currency. This lens normally costs 50% in US dollars, if I were to purchase in NZ.
BlusTsunami, that turned out great!
heist: Love that shot. I like the subtle titling, makes you sit there and think for second, engaging the viewer.
In other news, I just clicked 'place order' on a EF17-40F4L. My 17-55 is out of action, and I'm going to send it into Canon to see what recourse I can get with that lemon of a lens, but I really wanted something wide for this weekend and next week when I go to portland. Knowing my luck, it'll probably rain. Well, good thing it's a weather sealed 'L' then, right?
I chose it based on Lucky Forward's suggestion. I was thinking of going really wide with a 10-22, but he was right about missing that short tele. I'm thinking I'm going to miss the wide aperture, sharp detail, and IS, as well s the extra 15mm on the long end. But I'm not gambling with another 17-55, plus I'll get to experience that 'L' colour again, hopefully. Added features are the extra light weight making this much more useful as a walking/hiking lens, the build, and I'm hoping I will get MUCH less vignetting wide open. The last thing is just hoping, and it wasn't bad on my 17-55, but when I had a UV filter and a polariser stacked, I basically couldn't use the 17-55 wider than f/8.0. I'm guessing it should be sweet on a FF lens on a crop camera.
And no, I'm not made of money
I just anger-purchased at my 17-55. I had to switch to a New Zealand account to pay for it (and obviously, it was one of the least expensive options for a new lens). I guess it doesn't hurt that the US exchange is pretty poor at the moment, working in favour of buying using foreign currency. This lens normally costs 50% in US dollars, if I were to purchase in NZ.
Thanks! Sorry but I don't have a Mac and have never used Aperture so I can't compare.mrkgoo said:
The importing, catalog and library features are sorta clunky so my work flow is very jagged at the moment but I can definitely see myself using Lightroom for literally everything camera/picture related on my computer once I get better with it.
Can anyone offer tips for shooting in low light and near darkness (just street lights for example)? A lot of my night time pictures are very grainy.
Joe said:
Ah, sweet, no problem.
I think the best way is to actually embrace grain - use it for your shot.
If you absolutely MUST be rid of it, then I guess tripod and manual exposures with fast lenses (wide apertures) are the best way to go. Depending on the kind of shot, maybe a flash. The grain is a function on the quality of your sensor and its limitations, so you either have to work around it or accept it. Keep the iso low to minimise noise, although long exposures will also introduce noise.
There is also more information in the right of the histogram, so you can also try over exposing (but not clipping), and pulling it back down in post. Also, noise reduction algorithms have improved a load from what I understand. Sorry, that's about all I got
mrnorush: I love both those shots. Very compelling! Though the bokeh is a little distracting in the second image. I keep looking at it, so it's interesting, but does detract from the bird somewhat.
- Status